This is the best yet I have read on Fear of Radiation. Well sourced and very clear, even for non technical readers. I need to update Citizendium's article. Suggestions are welcome, especially for our Debate Guide page, where we still have some unanswered arguments from the pro-LNT side.
So what is the answer to the pro-LNT argument that their data shows a linear relationship between lung cancer and low concentrations of radon? This contradicts Cohen's data. I believe Cohen is right, but it is not my role at Citizendium to judge the issue. I just make sure that both sides can make their best argument.
I followed the link as best I could, but never could get access (or even link) to Darby's article, which itself is a compendium of 13 other studies. The Cohen studies showing the opposite have more data by factors of thousands. Find the U of Oslo booklet. Search just broke on my Mac
I had the same problem following the links from the European Code article. Unlike Cohen it is impossible to get to the source of their data. Darby is some kind of "meta study". The Cohen data is readily available, and anyone can check the allegations I have collected for Citizendium's Debate page. I checked the data for my county, and it looks good. Mike Conley's answer (show me the evidence) resolves any questions about cherry picking, fake data, etc.
The remaining question is - was Cohen's analysis confounded by smoking or some other uncontrolled variable? Cohen addresses this concern with a statistical argument, which neither I nor Jack Devanney find convincing. Jack says don't waste his time, he can debunk LNT without Cohen. I would like to pursue it a little further, both to defend CZ's inclusion of your graphic debunking EPA's radon claims (more deaths than drunk driving) and to see if there isn't a simple, compelling argument that doesn't depend on sophisticated statistics the anti's are calling obfuscation.
I believe this can be done with scatterplots. I am not a statistics expert, but I have prepared exhibits for Federal Court, refuting a highly paid statistics expert. I know that juries can understand scatterplots. If there was in fact, a strong reverse correlation between radon and smoking, as alleged by WJ Koch, our most ardent pro-LNT reviewer, we should see it in the scatterplots of lung cancer vs radon. He promised he would do that, but never delivered.
I do have the Oslo study in our Bibliography page.
Question: If normal metabolism disrupts chemical bonds in DNA strands, at about 1 break per second per cell, and DNA repair times are about one hour, how can repairs keep up with the damage?
I believe the normal metabolism creating oxygen species such as H2O2 typically cause single strand breaks, SSBs, not the double strand breads DSBs that require the repair foci in cells.
This is the best yet I have read on Fear of Radiation. Well sourced and very clear, even for non technical readers. I need to update Citizendium's article. Suggestions are welcome, especially for our Debate Guide page, where we still have some unanswered arguments from the pro-LNT side.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation
So what is the answer to the pro-LNT argument that their data shows a linear relationship between lung cancer and low concentrations of radon? This contradicts Cohen's data. I believe Cohen is right, but it is not my role at Citizendium to judge the issue. I just make sure that both sides can make their best argument.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/File:Lung_Cancer_-_Radon_-_European_Code_.png
I followed the link as best I could, but never could get access (or even link) to Darby's article, which itself is a compendium of 13 other studies. The Cohen studies showing the opposite have more data by factors of thousands. Find the U of Oslo booklet. Search just broke on my Mac
Found it, search university of Oslo, for Radon, lung cancer
and the LNT model
quote: Sarah Darby and Daniel Krewski – pooled studies
Sarah Darby et. al.(2005) presented pooled data from 13 studies in 9 European countries including
7148 cases and 14208 controls. Daniel Krewski et.al. presented data from 7 studies in USA including
4420 cases and 5707 controls.
These studies can be presented together since they both have based the studies on the LNT-theory.
Furthermore, it can be mentioned that these two studies represent the basis for WHO´s handbook
on indoor radon, which has been adopted by the radiation authorities both in Norway and USA.
The main argument against these studies is not only the assumption of LNT, but also the poor deter-
mination of the lung dose from the radon daughters. They assume that the data should be given in a
linear plot between lung cancer and the level of Bq per square meter in the homes. The purpose of
the studies is to determine the increase in cancer incidence per 100 Bq/m3 increase in radon level.
2005
Above Darbys data are given. To the left is given the measured amount of radon in the homes in Bq
per cubic meter. In the figure to the right the same data are given, but the "dose-axis" are corrected
to imply the long term average of the radon content.
In these plots the risk for lung cancer increases by 8 % per 100 Bq/m3 whereas in the right figure the
increase is 16% per 100 Bq/m3. For non-smokers no measurable increase was found
I had the same problem following the links from the European Code article. Unlike Cohen it is impossible to get to the source of their data. Darby is some kind of "meta study". The Cohen data is readily available, and anyone can check the allegations I have collected for Citizendium's Debate page. I checked the data for my county, and it looks good. Mike Conley's answer (show me the evidence) resolves any questions about cherry picking, fake data, etc.
The remaining question is - was Cohen's analysis confounded by smoking or some other uncontrolled variable? Cohen addresses this concern with a statistical argument, which neither I nor Jack Devanney find convincing. Jack says don't waste his time, he can debunk LNT without Cohen. I would like to pursue it a little further, both to defend CZ's inclusion of your graphic debunking EPA's radon claims (more deaths than drunk driving) and to see if there isn't a simple, compelling argument that doesn't depend on sophisticated statistics the anti's are calling obfuscation.
I believe this can be done with scatterplots. I am not a statistics expert, but I have prepared exhibits for Federal Court, refuting a highly paid statistics expert. I know that juries can understand scatterplots. If there was in fact, a strong reverse correlation between radon and smoking, as alleged by WJ Koch, our most ardent pro-LNT reviewer, we should see it in the scatterplots of lung cancer vs radon. He promised he would do that, but never delivered.
I do have the Oslo study in our Bibliography page.
I agree about scatter plots. There's a nice one about the dial painters. See Jack's documentation on the green table for it.
Question: If normal metabolism disrupts chemical bonds in DNA strands, at about 1 break per second per cell, and DNA repair times are about one hour, how can repairs keep up with the damage?
I believe the normal metabolism creating oxygen species such as H2O2 typically cause single strand breaks, SSBs, not the double strand breads DSBs that require the repair foci in cells.
Then break and repair times are for two different types of damage. That is confusing, and makes the argument vulnerable to criticism.
Excellent job, thanks.
Accurate, eloquent and thorough summary! Have you started receiving death threats yet?